Ableton Forum

nathannn wrote:

shadx312 wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ryMediaBox

ugh

and look who's behind it all the guy that says talent=10,000 hours of hard work.
this guy could write that eating dirt makes you brighter and everyone would do it.

...underestimation fail

unless you are a neuroscientist, this is not an area for 'original thinking'...brain science of the last few years especially, supports Gladwell...he's eccentric no doubt, but shooting the messenger does not support your case, which you have yet to succinctly define...if after 10,000+ hours you have yet to master your craft, you are the exception, not the norm

10,000 hours is on a generality anyway, and so its easy to understand, and easy to dismiss with twitter responses, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is chosen ignorance

this 11 page soap opera is so twisty and bendy. i can't get it on Netflix so i read the Cliff's notes version. it goes like this:

practice. a lot.

did i miss any meaningful plot twists beyond that?

I don't have any opinion on that malcolm mcdowell guy since I haven't read any of his stuff. The ugh was the whole thing in general. From the parents to the schools to the prescription commercials. It's all just ridiculous.

Some people are just better.

That's all the scientific evidence I need

H20nly wrote:this 11 page soap opera is so twisty and bendy. i can't get it on Netflix so i read the Cliff's notes version. it goes like this:

practice. a lot.

did i miss any meaningful plot twists beyond that?

just that nathannnnnn is hopeless.

and does this hopelessness change the fact (yeah, i said fact) that one should practice to get really good at Music/Art?

H20nly wrote:and does this hopelessness change the fact (yeah, i said fact) that one should practice to get really good at Music/Art?

dunno, if it's a FACT that nathannnnnn has done his 10,000 hours and it's a FACT that his music is shit then we might have the ultimate universal conundrum. the unstoppable practice vs. immovable suck. we either have to kill nathannnnnnnnnn or eliminate music from the universe. whatever we do it will involve a fast car with a suitcase full of hard drugs. I'll swing by at noon.

42.

the theory does not apply to specific subjects..
some need a lot more than 10000...

Sheeeit I don't care who dies I got GAS $$$$$

well assuming that there is a magic number of hours that makes you good... then who is the measuring stick that provides the number?

i think the answer to everything has already been stated...


42

its more of a matter of degrees, plateaus, than crossing a magic threshhold to mastery...general number and variable to the individual...

not really a 'who' to the measuring, each bit of practice will form that many more neural connections (and muscle memories) until youre just ultimate ninja commando

i'm not a 10,000-hour-koolaid-drinker btw, but it seems a reasonable, attainable goal ...

tal·ent? ?/?tæl?nt/ Show Spelled[tal-uhnt]
noun
1. a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.
2. a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.
3. a talented person: The cast includes many of the theater's major talents.
4. a group of persons with special ability: an exhibition of watercolors by the local talent.
5. Movies and Television . professional actors collectively, especially star performers.
6. a power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement: so called from the parable in Matt. 25:14–30.
7. any of various ancient units of weight, as a unit of Palestine and Syria equal to 3000 shekels, or a unit of Greece equal to 6000 drachmas.
8. any of various ancient hebrew or Attic monetary units equal in value to that of a talent weight of gold, silver, or other metal.
9. Obsolete . inclination or disposition.

Synonyms
1. capability, gift, genius. See ability.

Part of the problem is that definitions 1 & 2 are different. The 10,000hr applies to def.#2. You could have no skill but practice and become trained talent.
Def#1 is more Nature.
Who cares if the end result is good? Even by Nature you're not going to pop out your mom and start hamboning Bach.

my take on it is...innate 'talent' is to be born with X number more neural connections, or to have more formed in early life..ex.: exposure to lots of music (ehem,mozart)

genius, if it exists, is a rare exception...sometimes to the detriment of general sensibilities

Einstein, for example, barely spoke til he was 8 or 9...and when he was asked about his 'genius' faculties, said something to the effect, 'it's not that i'm smarter than anyone else, i just seem to be able to think about a problem longer' sic....so maybe genius mixed with a bit of OCD, lol...little evidence that its genetic in his case, as his parents, if i recall, were 'normal'

so, just my opinion, imo imo imo....its mostly nurture...subject to change, open to other views

simmerdown wrote:its more of a matter of degrees, plateaus, than crossing a magic threshhold to mastery...general number and variable to the individual...

not really a 'who' to the measuring, each bit of practice will form that many more neural connections (and muscle memories) until youre just ultimate ninja commando

i'm not a 10,000-hour-koolaid-drinker btw, but it seems a reasonable, attainable goal ...

yeah I think so too. I think you start by going into the extremes. as you progress, you balance it out step by step.

As someone who sees people on a regular basis with a variety of ages who are starting from basically scratch learning an instrument, I always do a running assessment of their skill set development. People come with varying abilities, or lack there of. Typically they are strong in 1/3rd and weak in 2/3rds. Left to their own devices they will nearly always consciously and sub consciously avoid addressing their weaknesses in favor of the more pleasurable results that working in the areas they are good at can get them for the effort they put in. My approach is to look at the big picture and coach them with this in mind.



The issue of 10k hrs practice, from my POV, is that the best gains to be made are when you involve as many components as possible, such as the ones I have noted above (My list is not absolute nor exhaustive). Paying attention 'globally' to your development in an ongoing manner makes for better results than just zooming in on 1-2 things. The thing I find particularly with children is that they are so clearly defined by my list. While some adults have closed the gap somewhat on some of their weakness simply due to a 'maturing' process, they ALWAYS carry their basic quotas and tendencies with them into lessons.

My approach to teaching/coaching means that I am continually spiraling around these areas within the context of a chosen instrument. Experience tells me that not everyone has an equal capacity to either understand concepts or execute physical skills. For what ever reason, either through lack of nurture or through real natural inability, some people will NEVER be as good as others because they never had the potential in the first place. Sure there are 'late bloomers' who intermittently come out of the wood work displaying extra ordinary skills or perception beyond what appears to be their experience, but they are by far in the minority. This is why part of any good teachers involvement is to help a person accept that they will only ever be as good as their 'make up' will allow them to be. Enjoying the process of personal development through the journey of learning to play an instrument is an absolutley wonderful thing. Encouraging a misguided belief that you can be anything you want if you just work hard at it is nuts.

great stuff gjm!